From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C723C433C1 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 22:07:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72A21619D1 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 22:07:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233867AbhCWWHC (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Mar 2021 18:07:02 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:30764 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233820AbhCWWGY (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Mar 2021 18:06:24 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1616537176; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=pRq3eZVbRV0oWPAPcRDv0Y/ExsjTvRldW+ZwtCTRY5g=; b=bMrzLOiZz3NlLrLm/cQOwK99hlD2jlUeUP7xiOdcFmgn8f11RAwYIZtY6kuC4VMesH+7hQ IQ3ViBQVU2KzjtABCIss6cWBI1OFKZIamOZfqmfqTGKNo5e6M9sA1hg6Z99yi2bInfixp+ 4CoLjmBEBp4wTkJ8pD0722stjCavkXQ= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-1-kYdx-kK4MaCmJMrG8tZ3eA-1; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 18:06:15 -0400 X-MC-Unique: kYdx-kK4MaCmJMrG8tZ3eA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0FF7800D53; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 22:06:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from warthog.procyon.org.uk (ovpn-112-58.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.112.58]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28FFB50C0E; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 22:06:05 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <2503810.1616508988@warthog.procyon.org.uk> References: <2503810.1616508988@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20210323135116.GF1719932@casper.infradead.org> <1885296.1616410586@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20210321105309.GG3420@casper.infradead.org> <161539526152.286939.8589700175877370401.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <161539528910.286939.1252328699383291173.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <2499407.1616505440@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Matthew Wilcox , Trond Myklebust , Anna Schumaker , Steve French , Dominique Martinet , Linus Torvalds , Christoph Hellwig , Alexander Viro , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-cachefs@redhat.com, linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Layton , David Wysochanski , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/28] mm: Add an unlock function for PG_private_2/PG_fscache MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2769313.1616537164.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 22:06:04 +0000 Message-ID: <2769314.1616537164@warthog.procyon.org.uk> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org David Howells wrote: > > > - wait_on_page_writeback(page); > > > + if (wait_on_page_writeback_killable(page) < 0) > > > + return VM_FAULT_RETRY | VM_FAULT_LOCKED; > > = > > You forgot to unlock the page. > = > Do I need to? Doesn't VM_FAULT_LOCKED indicate that to the caller? Or = is it > impermissible to do it like that? Looks like, yes, I do need to. VM_FAULT_LOCKED is ignored if RETRY is giv= en. David